Conspiracy Theories

Last week, the Republic criticized Senator Karen Johnson for questioning the official story of the 9-11 attacks. 

If Johnson truly maintains mere "questions" about the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks, she should have declined to vote. The likely truth of it, though, is that she really does believe her government capable of destruction of the highest order and is happy to express her delusions not just as a private citizen but as an elected official.

However, it seems that Republic editorial writers believe some conspiracies of their own.  Check out this editorial from today's Republic.

Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the former pastor of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, clutches to a lot of conspiracy theories.

The U.S. government has plotted to murder African-Americans with AIDS, for one. And to import debilitating, community-destroying illegal drugs into the country, for another. And so on. As we have seen in recent televised events, Wright is not shy about ascribing evil intent to this nation's elected leaders. They are but al-Qaida under a different flag, he says.

Whether malevolence is truly responsible for our national tragedies - or whether neglect, incompetence, weaknesses of the flesh or, even, the unintended consequences of good intentions better explain most of them - people of good faith may differ.

Really?  Is the Republic really saying that  people of "good faith" can believe that the US Government created the AIDS virus to kill African Americans?  Can people of good faith believe that the CIA is importing crack cocaine into black neighborhoods?

That's crazy and the Republic needs to say it's crazy. 

Why would the paper lend credence to these two destructive conspiracy theories?  Is it possible that they didn't misspeak?  Is it possible that they weren't just being polite or politically correct?  Is it possible that they actually believed what they wrote?

Do some members of the editorial board of the state's paper of record "maintain questions" about the origins of AIDS and crack?  Do they believe that "their government is capable of destruction of the highest order?"  Are they "happy to express their delusions not just as a private citizen, but as editorial writers?"

If so, then the writer needs to follow the same advice that the Republic was so quick to offer to Johnson.  The writer needs to step down so he or she can express these destructive and crazy theories as a private person and not as an Editorial Board member of Arizona's largest newspaper. 

Comments

[NICK]

NO MONEY,GUNS,OR CHURCH

I CLING TO BIG SMILE WATCHING
THE REPUBLIC CIRCULATION DECLINE.

[Travis]

It would be interesting to hear opinions about some substantiated facts rather than opinions about theories. There is a lot of time and space committed in our Oprah Generation to opinions about theories.

Newspapers were of value when they were the source of facts. Facts are worth something. Opinions, and worse yet, opinions on theories, are worthless. The paper would be better served rounding up some facts. Maybe then I would actually care about what they think.

[John]

You know, since you brought it up, I'd like to ask that since Obama has had to condemn and end his association with Rev. Wright, when is Sen. Karen Johnson going to apologize for her endorsement of neo-Nazi J.T. Ready in the 2006 Mesa City Council race. Not only did she endorse Ready, she recorded automated phone messages for his campaign. Johnson should apologize for this and her involvement in his campaign. Did she know of his neo-Nazi viewpoints and if she did, does she share those views?

[NICK]

CLINGING TO ANOTHER SMILE!

WASHINGTON POST PROFITS DECLINE
FROM $63 MILLION TO $38 MILLION.

GREG IS CORRECT WHEN HE ADVISES
AGAINST INVESTING RETIREMENT MONEY
IN MAIN STREET MEDIA.

[ron]

Let's see according to the Republic its ok for a liberal to believe in conspiracy theories but not ok for a right-winger to suggest that Loose Change might actually be onto something? or did I miss understand something?

[jdleslie1]

Here's another case of conservative persecution complex. This editorial is critical of Wright, not apologetic or excusing. The point wasn't the merit of his conspiracy theories, and the point of the sentence Greg underlines doesn't seem to be to set those arguments aside and zero in on how Wright is actually undercutting Obama.

But you wouldn't know that if you didn't read the whole thing. It seems taking quotes out of context is even more popular sport for politicians than journalists, as anyone who watches political commericials knows.

[Frank Soto]

I agree with jdleslie1, did you even read the whole editorial Greg? The editorial is not about conspiracy theories, those were merely a lead into the story. You are taking the entire quote out of context, and doing what you so often accuse the MSM of doing. For example, what if all I was quoted was this part of your story about karen Johnson:

"Well, actually, she's not in the news because she cast the deciding vote to kill the bill...it's why she voted to kill the bill. Johnson doubts that the official version of 9/11 is accurate...those buildings sure look like fell with the assistance of thermite explosives.

Lobbyists have learned that if you want to talk to Senator Johnson about a bill, don't mention 9/11...or for that matter, the United Nations, or come to think of it vaccinations...or fluoride, NAFTA, One World Government, amalgam dental fillings or the North American Union."

What if I then did applied Pattersonian rhetoric:

"That's just crazy, and Greg needs to say that is crazy.

Really? Are you really saying that people can in good faith believe that the U.S. government was a part of 9/11? Or that there is a secret group trying to create one world government? Or that vaccinations don't actually work and are just experiments in creating a super-race?

Does Greg maintain questions about 9/11, the illuminati, and vaccinations? If so, he should probably stop criticizing others for the same thing.